Nonhealthcare Occupations Research Articles

Underreporting of Work-Related COVID-19 Cases in Norway.

Background: This register-based study provides a profile of work-related Covid-19 cases reported by physicians to the Norwegian Labor Inspection Authority (NLIA). Methods: All the reports of work-related Covid-19 cases reported by a physician to the NLIAs Registry for Work-Related Diseases (RAS) between February 2020 and February 2022 were included. Descriptive statistics and the incidence rate of reported cases were computed for age, gender, and occupation. Results: Two hundred and seventeen work-related Covid-19 cases were reported to RAS during the study period. Sixty-five percent of the cases were females (n = 141), and 35 percent (n = 76) were males. Doctors, nurses, and ambulance personnel yielded higher incidence rates than other healthcare and nonhealthcare occupations. Conclusions: This study indicates that women aged 25-39 and employed in the healthcare sector had the highest reported incidence and number of work-related Covid-19 cases. Physician underreporting of work-related Covid-19 cases is an important finding. Plausibly, underreporting is more substantial for at-risk non-healthcare occupations such as waiters, bartenders, food couriers, and taxi drivers than occupations in healthcare.

Longitudinal analysis of the LA-SPARTA cohort of high-risk individuals after SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination

Abstract Questions remain regarding correlates of risk and immune protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination response. Thus, we prospectively enrolled 200 participants with a high risk of SARS-CoV-2 occupational exposure. Longitudinal analysis of participant exposure risks, vaccination/infection status, and symptoms were assessed at 3, 6, and 12 months, with blood and saliva collection. Quantitative ELISA assay was used to assess the serological response to the SARS-CoV-2 spike holoprotein (S), S-receptor binding domain (RBD) and nucleocapsid protein (NP). 40 of 200 (20%) participants were found to be infected via serology. Equal incidence of infection was found in healthcare and non-healthcare occupations. In those infected, only 79.5% seroconverted for NP, and 11.5% were unaware they had been infected. The antibody response to S was greater than to RBD. Additionally, Hispanic ethnicity was associated with 2-fold greater incidence of infection despite vaccination. Booster vaccination significantly increased the avidity of RBD-specific responses to variant spike proteins. No differences in avidity were found if a participant was boosted via vaccination or natural infection. Collectively, our results indicate that antibody quality and holoprotein response may reveal meaningful determinants of protection beyond RBD antibody titer alone. Additionally, determinants of infection risk may include race/ethnicity, and remain independent of comorbidity and humoral response in this cohort. This study received funding from Center for Influenza Vaccine Research for High Risk Populations- CIVIC 75N93019C00052 (EFR), Lundquist Institute Institutional Funds (MRY), UCLA W. M. Keck Foundation COVID 19 Research Award Program (EFR), and the Community Engagement Alliance Against COVID-19 (CEAL) (MRY, EFR). The project described was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences through the UCLA CTSI Grant UL1TR001881. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH or other funding sources. MMJ is supported by the NIH grants TL 1 DK132768 and U2C DK129496.

Longitudinal analysis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination in the LA-SPARTA cohort reveals increased risk of infection in vaccinated Hispanic participants.

SARS-CoV-2 is the etiologic agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Questions remain regarding correlates of risk and immune protection against COVID-19. We prospectively enrolled 200 participants with a high risk of SARS-CoV-2 occupational exposure at a U.S. medical center between December 2020 and April 2022. Participant exposure risks, vaccination/infection status, and symptoms were followed longitudinally at 3, 6, and 12 months, with blood and saliva collection. Serological response to the SARS-CoV-2 spike holoprotein (S), receptor binding domain (RBD) and nucleocapsid proteins (NP) were quantified by ELISA assay. Based on serology, 40 of 200 (20%) participants were infected. Healthcare and non-healthcare occupations had equivalent infection incidence. Only 79.5% of infected participants seroconverted for NP following infection, and 11.5% were unaware they had been infected. The antibody response to S was greater than to RBD. Hispanic ethnicity was associated with 2-fold greater incidence of infection despite vaccination in this cohort. Overall, our findings demonstrate: 1) variability in the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection despite similar exposure risk; 2) the concentration of binding antibody to the SARS-CoV-2 S or RBD proteins is not directly correlated with protection against infection in vaccinated individuals; and 3) determinants of infection risk include Hispanic ethnicity despite vaccination and similar occupational exposure.

A survival analysis approach to determine factors associated with non-retention of newly hired health workers in Iran

Background and aimOne of the main tasks of the healthcare human resource management is to maintain and retain professional staff. The high level turnover of professional staff may reduce the quality of healthcare service delivery. Therefore, this study investigated the factors associated with the turnover of the newly recruited healthcare professionals using survival analysis method in Iran.Materials and methodsThis historical cohort analysis comprised 6811 employees who began working at Mashhad University of Medical Sciences between 2005 and 2020. Employees recruited at any of the university’s units between the years 2005 to 2019 were included. We used appropriate descriptive indices and Log-rank test and the Cox proportional-hazards model to assess the staff turnover. A significance level of 0.05 was used for all tests.ResultsThe findings of the survival analysis showed that the probability of turnover in one year, two years, and five years of employment were 0.12, 0.16, and 0.27. Based on the findings of the Log-rank test, the probability of turnover in entire of the study period was not statistically different between male and female (p = 0.573), and likewise between employees with healthcare occupations and non-healthcare occupations (p = 0.351). Employees whose current workplace and birthplace were not similar had a significantly higher probability of turnover (p < 0.001). Accordingly, the Cox regression result showed, the risk of turnover for the singles was 1.22 times higher than the married. For the Ph.D degree was 3.23 times higher compared to those with a diploma or an associate degree, and for a bachelor’s or master’s degree was 2.06 times more likely to change their workplace than those with a diploma or an associate degree.ConclusionPolicies promoting the recruitment of native-born professionals, given priority to the married candidates than single ones, and/or recurring candidates to pledge to stay in the locality of recruitment site can increase the staff retention and reduce the costs of staff turnover including re-hiring, initial and on-the-job training, accommodation, and other extra living consumptions away from home and family.

The relative incidence of COVID-19 in healthcare workers versus non-healthcare workers: evidence from a web-based survey of Facebook users in the United States.

Background: Healthcare workers are at the forefront of the COVID-19 pandemic and it is essential to monitor the relative incidence rate of this group, as compared to workers in other occupations. This study aimed to produce estimates of the relative incidence ratio between healthcare workers and workers in non-healthcare occupations. Methods: Analysis of cross-sectional data from a daily, web-based survey of 1,822,662 Facebook users from September 8, 2020 to October 20, 2020. Participants were Facebook users in the United States aged 18 and above who were tested for COVID-19 because of an employer or school requirement in the past 14 days. The exposure variable was a self-reported history of working in healthcare in the past four weeks and the main outcome was a self-reported positive test for COVID-19. Results: On October 20, 2020, in the United States, there was a relative COVID-19 incidence ratio of 0.73 (95% UI 0.68 to 0.80) between healthcare workers and workers in non-healthcare occupations. Conclusions: In fall of 2020, in the United States, healthcare workers likely had a lower COVID-19 incidence rate than workers in non-healthcare occupations.

The relative incidence of COVID-19 in healthcare workers versus non-healthcare workers: evidence from a web-based survey of Facebook users in the United States

Background: Healthcare workers are at the forefront of the COVID-19 pandemic and it is essential to monitor the relative incidence rate of this group, as compared to workers in other occupations. This study aimed to produce estimates of the relative incidence ratio between healthcare workers and workers in non-healthcare occupations.Methods: Analysis of cross-sectional data from a daily, web-based survey of 1,822,662 Facebook users from September 8, 2020 to October 20, 2020. Participants were Facebook users in the United States aged 18 and above who were tested for COVID-19 because of an employer or school requirement in the past 14 days. The exposure variable was a self-reported history of working in healthcare in the past four weeks and the main outcome was a self-reported positive test for COVID-19.Results: On October 20, 2020, in the United States, there was a relative COVID-19 incidence ratio of 0.73 (95% UI 0.68 to 0.80) between healthcare workers and workers in non-healthcare occupations.Conclusions: In fall of 2020, in the United States, healthcare workers likely had a lower COVID-19 incidence rate than workers in non-healthcare occupations.

The relative incidence of COVID-19 in healthcare workers versus non-healthcare workers: evidence from a web-based survey of Facebook users in the United States

Background: Healthcare workers are at the forefront of the COVID-19 pandemic and it is essential to monitor the relative infection rate of this group, as compared to workers in other occupations. This study aimed to produce estimates of the relative incidence ratio between healthcare workers and workers in non-healthcare occupations. Methods: Analysis of cross-sectional data from a daily, web-based survey of 1,788,795 Facebook users from September 6, 2020 to October 18, 2020. Participants were Facebook users in the United States aged 18 and above who were tested for COVID-19 because of an employer or school requirement in the past 14 days. The exposure variable was a self-reported history of working in healthcare in the past four weeks and the main outcome was a self-reported positive test for COVID-19. Results: On October 18, 2020, in the United States, there was a relative COVID-19 incidence ratio of 0.7 (95% UI 0.6 to 0.8) between healthcare workers and workers in non-healthcare occupations. Conclusions: Currently in the United States, healthcare workers have a substantially and significantly lower COVID-19 incidence rate than workers in non-healthcare occupations.

Estimation of differential occupational risk of COVID-19 by comparing risk factors with case data by occupational group.

BackgroundThe disease burden of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) is not uniform across occupations. Although healthcare workers are well‐known to be at increased risk, data for other occupations are lacking. In lieu of this, models have been used to forecast occupational risk using various predictors, but no model heretofore has used data from actual case numbers. This study assesses the differential risk of COVID‐19 by occupation using predictors from the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) database and correlating them with case counts published by the Washington State Department of Health to identify workers in individual occupations at highest risk of COVID‐19 infection.MethodsThe O*NET database was screened for potential predictors of differential COVID‐19 risk by occupation. Case counts delineated by occupational group were obtained from public sources. Prevalence by occupation was estimated and correlated with O*NET data to build a regression model to predict individual occupations at greatest risk.ResultsTwo variables correlate with case prevalence: disease exposure (r = 0.66; p = 0.001) and physical proximity (r = 0.64; p = 0.002), and predict 47.5% of prevalence variance (p = 0.003) on multiple linear regression analysis. The highest risk occupations are in healthcare, particularly dental, but many nonhealthcare occupations are also vulnerable.ConclusionsModels can be used to identify workers vulnerable to COVID‐19, but predictions are tempered by methodological limitations. Comprehensive data across many states must be collected to adequately guide implementation of occupation‐specific interventions in the battle against COVID‐19.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Healthcare Worker Wellness: A Scoping Review.

At the heart of the unparalleled crisis of COVID-19, healthcare workers (HCWs) face several challenges treating patients with COVID-19: reducing the spread of infection; developing suitable short-term strategies; and formulating long-term plans. The psychological burden and overall wellness of HCWs has received heightened awareness in news and research publications. The purpose of this study was to provide a review on current publications measuring the effects of COVID-19 on wellness of healthcare providers to inform interventional strategies. Between April 6–May 17, 2020, we conducted systematic searches using combinations of these keywords and synonyms in conjunction with the controlled vocabulary of the database: “physician,” “wellness, “wellbeing,” “stress,” “burnout,” “COVID-19,” and “SARS-CoV-2.” We excluded articles without original data, research studies regarding the wellness of non-healthcare occupations or the general public exclusively, other outbreaks, or wellness as an epidemic. A total of 37 studies were included in this review. The review of literature revealed consistent reports of stress, anxiety, and depressive symptoms in HCWs as a result of COVID-19. We describe published data on HCW distress and burnout but urge future research on strategies to enhance HCW well-being.

Influenza Vaccination of Healthcare Workers in the United States, 1989-2002

We sought to estimate influenza vaccination coverage among healthcare workers (HCWs) in the United States during 1989-2002 and to identify factors associated with vaccination in this group. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends annual influenza vaccination for HCWs to reduce transmission of influenza to patients at high risk for serious complications of influenza. Analysis of cross-sectional data from 1989-2002 surveys conducted by the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). The outcome measure was self-reported influenza vaccination in the past 12 months. Bivariate and multivariate analysis of 2002 NHIS data. Household interviews conducted during 1989-2002, weighted to reflect the noninstitutionalized, civilian US population. Adults aged 18 years or older participated in the study. A total of 2,089 were employed in healthcare occupations or settings in 2002, and 17,160 were employed in nonhealthcare occupations or settings. The influenza vaccination rate among US HCWs increased from 10.0% in 1989 to 38.4% in 2002, with no significant change since 1997. In a multivariate model that included data from the 2002 NHIS, factors associated with a higher rate of influenza vaccination among HCWs aged 18-64 years included age of 50 years or older (odds ratio [OR], 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.1), hospital employee status (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.9), 1 or more visits to the office of a healthcare professional in the past 12 months (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.2), receipt of employer-provided health insurance (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.1), a history of pneumococcal vaccination (OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 2.5-6.1), and history of hepatitis B vaccination (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.4). Non-Hispanic black persons were less likely to be vaccinated (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.5-0.9) than non-Hispanic white persons. There were no significant differences in vaccination levels according to HCW occupation category. Influenza immunization among HCWs reached a plateau during 1997-2002. New strategies are needed to encourage US HCWs to receive influenza vaccination to prevent influenza illness in themselves and transmission of influenza to vulnerable patients.

Seroprevalence of pertussis antibody among health care personnel in Spain.

Pertussis in healthcare workers is of particular concern, as they can be in contact with infected patients and may transmit the infection to susceptible patients, co-workers and other contacts. This study was carried out to examine the prevalence of pertussis antibodies in hospital personnel. A total of 487 healthcare workers > or = 25 years in age and students (19-24 years) in hospital training were recruited. The overall prevalence of pertussis antibody determined by ELISA was 51.7%. No significant differences on prevalence by age group (19-24, 25-34, 35-44 and > or = 45 years) and occupation (student, physician, nursing personnel and non-healthcare occupations) were found. In Spain, health care personnel in a general hospital will not have a significantly higher risk of serologically detectable contact with B. pertussis. Fifty percent of physicians and nursing personnel working in hospital were seronegative for pertussis antibody. A high percentage of these subjects will be susceptible to infection.